Hi,

I am a parent(lay) judge,

• If you can please share cases so I can follow along I would appreciate it (veezee210@gmail.com)

• Don’t speak fast and explain your cases thoroughly

• Limit Complicated Jargon: Explain what the words mean

• I will judge based on

• Confidence and speaker skills

• Final focus

• Respectfulness

Have Fun!

I'm an editorial assistant at The New York Times. Previously, I assisted coaching public forum at Johnston High School and worked as a fact-checker at The Nation.

Add me to the email chain: erberch95@gmail.com

I consider myself a "flow judge," but PF is meant to be a persuasive-speaking activity. Establish a framework early in the round, and tell me why the arguments you're winning matter more than the arguments your opponents are winning. You can get creative with that (e.g. kick your case and go for turns) as long as you're making the impacts clear.

A few preferences:

1. Sign post.

2. The second team's rebuttal needs to respond to the first team's.

3. Extend warrants and impacts in every speech - not just cards.

4. Be respectful. I won't drop you for decorum, but low speaker points can still keep great teams out of out-rounds.

If you have any questions about preferences, please ask. When tournaments allow it, I'm happy to go over my RFD with you and answer any questions, but please remember that isn't an opportunity to relitigate the round.

Clements 22'

NYU 26'

Hi everyone my name is Aizaz! I competed in congres as well as foreign and domestic extempt for four years. I currently compete actively in college level parlimentary debate. I won't list my record in depth, but I did pretty well in high school so i consider myself experinced, especially in congress and extempt.

A few things to keep in mind:

if you want me on the chain: aizazbokhari549@gmail.com

any form of bigotry against your opponent or anyone else in and outside the round will result in an automatic L25 in PF, and for congress you will be ranked last.

PF:

Fairly simple, framing should be here, send the case with cards attached beforehand. I am pretty comfortable with speed, I will say clear up to twice if something is not clear, after that I will not flow in a way conducive to your team's sucsess. Anything not responded to is considered conceded and I appreaciate weighing throughout the round, but esepcially nuanced in summary. Your flow for final focus should mirror that of summary.

extra info: I am not super familiar with progressive argumentation in PF, though I will try to evaluate it as fairly as possible. Cross is binding if brought up in speech. Please show respect and kindness to everyone, especially newer novices. Nothing in debate requires you to be rude or demeaning.

Congres:

General:

I have extensive experince in congress. I am a flow judge, clear links, weighing, and proper general argumentation will always be more important to me than rhetoric. Having said that, rhetoric when done well and convincingly is an additon to your argument and will help you but it cannot make up for poor argumentation.

Questoning:

Please be respectul during questoning, heated back and forths will reflect poorly for both debaters. Good questoning results in info being acquired, it is not meant to make arguments.

First speeches and crystals:

For first speeches, my main critiera is if your argument frames the rest of the round and sets the contours of debate for the chamber than you have given a very good speech to me.

Crystals are high risk high reward. If you effectively wrap up the round, and cross-apply arguments where they can be applied and thus make clear for me my own ballot I will rank you highly. But if your crystal is just a stylised form of rehash then I struggle to see your additon to the round. So high risk high reward.

PO's

As long as the room is run smoothly with minimum errors(1-3) then you will be ranked fairly. A good PO is in the backround at best, so please keep semantics to a minimum. if you are experinced and no one else wants to or can PO, I appreciate you taking one for the chamber and that will reflect on the ballot.

Clash:

I very much value clash in round, and clash does not mean for me rehashing other peoples arguments. Clash, unless it is a crystal, should be new in the way it engages in the round. If your arguments are brought up or are the focus of clash that means you have engaged in the debate in a very convincing way and it will reflect well on my ballot. That said, while I like creative arguments if your points are so niche they disconnect from the round and I struggle to place you in the round it will not be to your advantage.

Small things:

I value quality over quantity, if I see you tried to speak but for some reasson could not and as such you got one or two less speeches than others I will not hold it against you. I value high quality speech to many speeches. Do not use someone's tragedy for bad rheotric, or make jokes that are not beffiting the seriousness of what is being discussed.

Fairness:

If you and some other group of people have rigged the docket/ actively try and keep someone from getting a speech you will be dropped. If you as the PO clearly rig the round, you wil be dropped. Their is no room on my ballot for this, any form of clear unfairness results in you being dropped.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

While I have many years of experience as a teacher, I have very limited experience as a debate judge. Therefore, I would prefer that the speaking speed be moderate, words clearly enunciated, and arguments laid out concisely.

A resolution should be stated at the beginning of the debate, all important terms defined, and data/stats are put into context.

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

Hi! My name is Wren Markman and I debated for three years in the UDL, so I have some experience in Public Forum debate. I typically flow (take notes on) rounds, but I'm not infallible so I still might miss something.

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Speaking too fast will not show you know more, rather it may make it difficult to be able to note every point. Good luck to all!

It is good practice to show the Weighing of Arguments including Scope, Timeframer, Other -"isms", Magnitutude & probability when addressing both your team's and your opponent's arguments.

Use crossfire to your advantage: ask questions that are friendly to your arguments, while also asking questions that break down or require additional proof to the opposing team's presented arguments, and then - BRING IT UP in the next round. Saying it in cross is not enough, you must use it to prove your argument's merit.

Poor sportsmanship including Ad Hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.